The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.

From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."

?php
>

Friday, January 13, 2017

-- the
first two-state solution -- created the new Arab entity nearly 97
years ago called Trans-Jordan, covering some 35,000 square miles, or
nearly four fifths of the erstwhile Palestine Mandate. Immediately,
Jewish residence in this new Arab territory was forbidden, and it is
thus historically correct to state that Jordan is Palestine.

In the 11th hour and the 59th minute of his miserable term in the White House, Barack Hussein Obama struck his knife deep into the heart of the embattled Jewish state.

With the appalling anti-Israel passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334, engineered by President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry, the blame for the Israel-Palestinian conflict was falsely imparted upon the easy target: Israel and the so-called "settlements."

There were no "settlements" before the 1967 Six-Day War, when the Jewish state survived yet another Arab war of genocide and freed the embattled nation from the existing 1947 nine- to 15-mile-wide armistice lines, which Israel's then minister of foreign affairs, Abba Eban, called the Auschwitz lines.

It is not from 1967 that the conflict with the Arab and Muslim world or the so-called Palestinians began. To fully understand its origins, we must go back to the early years of the 20th century.

In 1920, Great Britain was given the responsibility by the League of Nations to oversee the Palestine Mandate with the express intention of reconstituting within its territory a Jewish national home.

The League of Nations created a number of articles in line with the original intent of the Balfour Declaration of November 29, 1917. At the last minute, however, a new article was introduced by the British Colonial Office: article 25.

It became apparent that its inclusion directly enabled Great Britain in 1921-22 to tear away all the vast territory east of the River Jordan and give it to the Arab Hashemites. The territory to become Trans-Jordan, led by the emir Abdullah.

British officials claimed that the gift of Mandatory Palestine east of the Jordan River was in gratitude to the Hashemites for their contribution in helping defeat the Turks. However, T.S. Lawrence described in derisory terms the Hashemite role as "a side show of a side show."

Ironically, Britain was aided far more by the Jewish Nili underground movement in defeating the Ottoman Turkish Empire, which had ruled geographical Palestine for 400 years.

This was the first partition of Palestine, the first two-state solution, and created the new Arab entity nearly 97 years ago called Trans-Jordan, covering some 35,000 square miles, or nearly four fifths of the erstwhile Palestine Mandate. Immediately, Jewish residence in this new Arab territory was forbidden, and it is thus historically correct to state that Jordan is Palestine.

In 1923, the British and French colonial powers also divided up the northern part of the Palestine Mandate. Britain stripped away the Golan Heights (with its ancient biblical Jewish roots) and gave it to French-occupied Syria.

The Balfour Declaration issued by Lord Balfour, British foreign secretary, never envisaged that the Jordan River would be the eastern boundary of the reconstituted Jewish homeland.

As early as September 19, 1919, the London Times newspaper had thundered in an editorial: "The Jordan will not do as the eastern frontier of Palestine[.] ... Palestine must have a good military frontier east of the River Jordan[.] ... Our duty as Mandatory is to make Jewish Palestine not a struggling state but one that is capable of vigorous and independent life[.]"

During its administration of the remaining Palestine Mandate up until 1947, Britain severely restricted Jewish immigration and purchases of land while turning a blind eye to massive illegal Arab immigration into the territory from neighboring stagnant Arab territories.

Britain's sorry record of appeasement of the Arabs, at the expense of Jewish destiny in the remaining tiny territory, culminated in the infamous 1939 White Paper, which limited Jewish immigration to just 75,000 souls for the next five years. This draconian policy, coming as it did on the eve of the outbreak of World War 2, was a deathblow to millions of Jews attempting to flee extermination by Nazi Germany.

Britain's mismanagement of the Mandate finally led to the United Nations' Partition Plan of 1947. The Jewish Agency reluctantly accepted this additional dismemberment of what was left to them of the promised Jewish national home in Mandatory Palestine.

They did this to provide a refuge for the surviving Jewish remnants of the Holocaust and for the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees being driven out of their homes throughout the Arab world. In contrast, the Arab regimes rejected the Partition Plan. Then, as now, they worked against the existence of an independent Jewish state.

Israel was officially reborn as a sovereign nation in 1948, and its 600,000 Jews fought to survive the massive Arab onslaught, which was intended to wipe out the Jewish state.

In 1948, Trans-Jordan, now renamed the Kingdom of Jordan, joined the other Arab nations in invading the Jewish state, driving out the Jewish inhabitants from east Jerusalem and the Old City, annexing the biblical and ancestral Jewish heartland of Judea and Samaria and renaming it the West Bank. Only Britain and Pakistan recognized the illegal annexation.

Nineteen years later, the Arab states declared again their imminent intention to destroy Israel. In the June 1967 Six-Day War, Israel liberated Jewish and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria from Jordan in a defensive war.

Israel foolishly offered to give away newly liberated Judea and Samaria to the Hashemite regime in Jordan in a hoped for full and lasting peace. But the Arab League, meeting in Khartoum in August 1967, delivered the infamous three nos: no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel.

It is within the narrow 40-mile-wide territory remaining for the Jewish state, if one includes Judea and Samaria, that the world now demands the establishment of a fraudulent Arab state to be called Palestine – a state that has never existed before in all of recorded history.

Here then is the next so-called two-state solution, which dismembers what is left of Israel and drives hundreds of thousands of Jewish residents from their homes, villages, and farms – what a hostile world pejoratively calls "settlements." Why? Because just as in Jordan, Jews will not be permitted to live within Muslim Arab territory, while Arabs can remain free to live within Israel.

The searing tragedy is that the next two-state solution may presage for the Jewish people yet another Final Solution – the German Nazi regime's euphemism for the Holocaust.

The fact is that this is not a dispute over borders. This is a religious war, and the Arabs, so long as the overwhelming majority remain Muslim, will never accept the existence of a non-Muslim state in territory previously conquered by them in the name of Allah.

Nearly ninety-seven years ago, the original two-state solution was enacted in infamy. Certainly, the outgoing Obama administration and present State Department, consumed as they are by their anti-Israel animus, could not care less about such historical correctness.

Victor Sharpe is a freelance writer and author of the acclaimed trilogy Politicide: The attempted murder of the Jewish State.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/01/a_look_back_at_the_first_twostate_solution.html Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Obama has for eight years championed the Arafat agenda.

At the Camp David talks in July, 2000 hosted by President Clinton, Yasser Arafat rejected the proposals for a final status agreement put forward by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and offering Arafat virtually all the territories beyond the pre-1967 armistice lines. He rejected as well Clinton’s suggested amendments to Barak’s offer. Nor did Arafat submit any alternative proposals.

The reason for Arafat’s tack was not difficult to discern for anyone who had been paying attention to what the Palestinian leader had been saying and doing since the inception of the Oslo Accords in 1993. It was not that he was unwilling to take control of more territory and add to the forty percent of the West Bank and most of Gaza already handed him by Israel. Rather, the problem for Arafat was that the Camp David talks were cast as “end of conflict” negotiations. It was understood that any territorial agreement would be accompanied by Arafat signing away all further Palestinian claims against Israel, and this was something Arafat had no intention of doing.

Arafat had made clear his goals for the Oslo process at its very inception. On the night of the signing of the initial Oslo agreements on the White House lawn in September, 1993, he was on Jordanian television from Washington explaining to his fellow Palestinians and to the wider Arab world that Oslo was the first phase of the Palestine National Council’s 1974 program. This was a reference to the so-called Plan of Phases, according to which the Palestine Liberation Organization would acquire whatever territory it could gain by negotiations, then use that land as a base for pursuing its ultimate goal of Israel’s destruction. Arafat made at least a dozen references to this perception of Oslo within a month of that broadcast, and he and his associates referred to it many times thereafter. Once established in Gaza in July, 1994, Arafat also became involved in promoting the increased terror to which Israel was subjected in the ensuing months.

In the wake of abandoning Camp David, Arafat undertook a two-pronged strategy to advance his objectives. He unleashed a still more intense, indeed unprecedented, terror war against Israel, both to weaken Israeli resolve and, potentially, to win world sympathy as Israel’s response, against assailants imbedded within the Palestinian civilian population, would inevitably - he anticipated - cause large-scale civilian casualties.

He also undertook a diplomatic campaign to win international, particularly European, support for recognition of all lands beyond the pre-1967 lines as “Palestine”; in effect, granting it all to the Palestinians without the bilateral negotiations and agreements called for in the Oslo accords and without the Palestinians having to foreswear future, additional claims against Israel culminating ultimately in her dissolution.

But Arafat’s diplomatic gambit did not work. Most importantly, in response to Clinton’s placing the onus on Arafat for Camp David’s failure and Clinton’s opposing the recognition Arafat sought, the Europeans being solicited by Arafat would not sign on to his agenda.

Arafat’s longtime associate and successor as head of Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, has continued to pursue Arafat’s course. He has insisted repeatedly that he will never recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish state within any borders. He has used the media, mosques and schools under his control to promote the message that the Jews have no legitimate claim to any of the land under Israel’s aegis; that they are alien usurpers whose presence must be extirpated.

It appears Abbas does not directly organize terror attacks on Israelis, and he has publicly opposed terror; not for ethical reasons but because he sees it as counter-productive. Nevertheless, he has indirectly promoted terror by, for example, falsely claiming that Israel is threatening the mosques on the Temple Mount and urging Palestinians to “defend” them against the “filthy feet” of the Jews. He also praises terrorists, names public institutions after them, uses his media, mosques and schools to urge others, especially the young, to emulate them, provides financial rewards to terrorists and their families, and gives lucrative public appointments to terrorists released from Israeli jails.

Also, like Arafat, Abbas has sought to gain international recognition of “Palestine,” of the Palestinians’ claim to all territory beyond the pre-1967 armistice lines, and to do so without negotiating with Israel, without reaching a bilateral agreement, and, most importantly, without signing an “end of conflict” accord and foreswearing future claims against Israel.

The major difference between 2000 and now is that Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton.

On the contrary, Obama has for eight years championed the Arafat agenda. He has been virtually silent on Abbas’s refusal to recognize Israel’s legitimacy, on his refusal to negotiate with Israel, on his promotion and incitement of terror. He has consistently characterized Abbas as a moderate and peace-maker and has consistently blamed Israel for the absence of peace. He has either done nothing in the face of Abbas’s efforts to gain international recognition of “Palestine” without seeking an agreement with Israel or has actually abetted those efforts.

No less dishonest than Obama’s characterization of Abbas have been his attacks on Prime Minister Netanyahu. Obama asserts that Netanyahu has accelerated the growth of settlements and that his doing so is rapidly closing the door on a possible two-state solution. In fact, there has been less settlement growth under Netanyahu than under his predecessors, notwithstanding Secretary of State Kerry’s recent claims, and there have been no new settlements founded for decades. In addition, the Israeli leader of the Oslo process, Yitzhak Rabin, in his last speech in the Knesset before his assassination, went into some detail regarding areas in the territories Israel would have to retain in a final agreement in order to have defensible borders. The areas are virtually the same as those the current Israeli government has focused on, and Rabin did not see Israel’s retention of them as precluding establishment of a viable, independent Palestinian entity, a goal he obviously favored.

Now, using the supposed “closing door” on a two-state solution as a figleaf, Obama has choreographed and allowed to pass UN Security Council Resolution 2334. The resolution - in violation of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and the United Nations Charter, which assert Jewish rights in the relevant areas; in violation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, which call for the negotiation of “secure and recognized borders”; in violation of the Oslo Accords, which call for the resolving of all issues by direct, bilateral negotiations - declares that all territory beyond the pre-1967 armistice lines is Palestinian territory.

Clearly, Resolution 2334 resolves nothing. But with its passing, Obama can be seen as having notably advanced Arafat’s Plan of Phases.

Whether a new American administration can redress the harm done to genuine peace efforts, it is to be hoped that it will at least reverse eight years of postures and policies favoring those whose concept of peace is pursuing for Israel the peace of the dead.

Kenneth Levin is a psychiatrist and historian and author of "The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People under Siege."Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265390/obama-advances-arafats-agenda-kenneth-levin Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Existing social structures are inherently flawed and must be destroyed through violent revolution. It’s progress.

The end of Obama presidency, along with Martin Luther King Day day, provide an opportunity to analyze race relations after eight years of the first (half) black president. From one perspective, it hasn’t been successful. That racial tension has increased since 2008 is undeniable. One poll finds that 55% of Americans believe race relations have deteriorated under Obama, while only 8% feel they have improved. The New York Times writes that 60% of Americans (including the majority of blacks and whites) feel that race relations are generally bad, much higher than 2008. Riots have recently rocked communities like Ferguson, Milwaukee, and Charlotte. For conservatives, this shows the failure of the Obama Administration.

What conservatives must understand is that for Marxists on the far left, increased racial tensions, riots, and violence are necessary preconditions for an egalitarian society. Soothing race relations has never been the goal because for Marxists, progress occurs through violence. The existing exploitative racist society can never be peaceful overthrown, they believe. This is Marx’s influence on the contemporary left-wing activists.

Marx explains the world by exploitation and oppression. Marx specifically argued that a “veiled civil war” exists within society between oppressors and oppressed. This struggle underlies all history and explains contemporary social conditions.

How do we change this? How do we act ethically and make the world a better place? By raising consciousness about this raging social conflict. For Marxists, the oppressed and exploited must be taught that they are victims. Thousands of left-wing activists across the country have dedicated their lives to this cause. And they have been successful: according to a CNN poll, in 2011, 28% of Americans said race is a “big problem” in America. By 2015, 49% of Americans agreed. For conservatives, this suggests Obama has failed, but for anyone working within the Marxist paradigm, this is progress because consciousness of reality, awareness of the struggle, has increased. It is a step toward violent revolution, a step toward a more egalitarian society.

Like the Bible, Marxism also prophesizes; the violent uprisings that follow raised consciousness are inevitable. Marx prophesizes: “Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots… At first the contest is carried on by individual laborers, then by the workpeople of a factory, then by the operative of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labour, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze...” These are the conditions current activists and protesters seek to create in hastening the inevitable revolution. And it’s not peaceful.

Whereas conservatives and Marxists both see this violence as threatening to the existing social structure, conservatives need to recognize that Marxists encourage this violence. Marx further prophesies, “Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class… assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands.” Existing social structures are inherently flawed and must be destroyed through violent revolution. It’s progress.

But none of the African Americans rioters have never read Marx? No matter. We learn not just by directly reading sources, but from friends, teachers and the media. In the twentieth century, prominent African-American writers like C.L.R. James, Langston Hughes, and George Padmore used Marx’s ideas to explain racial issues in America, emphasizing struggle and exploitation. The philosophy then spreads to other prominent African-Americans, like W.E.B. Dubois, Angela Davis, and Harry Edwards. This can be said of a host of academics, too, many of whom may not be formal Marxists, but adopt part of his paradigm, such as the existence of rampant oppression. They teach these ideas to their students, some of whom go on to foment protests and riots.

Harry Edwards provides a paradigmatic example. As a sociologist, Harry Edwards is steeped in Marxism. Marx is to sociologists what Freud is to psychologists. Their writings, although not always literally followed, form a general framework for the whole field. No one can succeed in contemporary sociology without adhering to some Marxist principles. Struggle is so central to Edwards’ cosmology, he published a book in 1980 titled The Struggle that Must Be.

One more important fact about Edwards: he is a close friend of Colin Kaepernick, the young quarterback who refused to stand for the national anthem, starting a national debate about the status of African-Americans in society. Kaepernick acknowledges “Dr. Edwards is a good friend. He is someone I talk to and run a lot of things by and have lots of conversations with.”

Edwards returns the compliment: “He [Kaepernick] is evolving through an awakening [read: awareness has been raised].” Edwards teaches his disciples like Kaepernick the Marxist paradigm and Kaepernick acts accordingly, hoping to raise consciousness among others. And the quarterback’s actions have caused two phenomena: increased awareness among athletes and more racial tension. Objective achieved. The Revolution looms.

All Marxists promote revolution. That violence and riots have grow worse under Obama is in no way a repudiation of anything he has done, for the far left. In fact, for Marxists, it is quite the opposite. It is progress.

David ByrneSource: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/01/the_real_reason_race_relations_have_deteriorated_.html Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

US court rules that terror sponsors Iran and Syria must pay 178 m. dollars to family whose infant daughter was murdered in a terror attack.

Chaya Zisel Braun

Courtesy of the family

A US court ruled this week that Iran and Syria must pay the
parents of a baby murdered in a terror attack a sum of 178 million
dollars.

The terror attack
in question happened in 2014 at a Jerusalem light rail station, when a
Hamas terrorist rammed his car into the stroller of baby Chaya Zissel
Braun Hy"d, who was then only three months old. She was murdered, as was
another woman at the scene. Chaya’s father, Shmuel was badly wounded.

Afterward, Chaya’s parents took it upon themselves to wage a legal battle against terror.

Since their daughter had American citizenship, they filed suit
in an American court against Iran and Syria, on grounds that these
countries fund Hamas.

Now, the parents’ battle has born fruit.

Attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, whose Tel Aviv-based Law
Center, Shurat HaDin, represented the Braun family in court, praised the
ruling. “The criminal regimes in Tehran and Damascus are the biggest
state sponsors of terrorism is the world. This judgement sends a clear
message that there is a very heavy price to be paid for financing
terrorism and spilling innocent blood in the streets of Jerusalem.
Shurat HaDin will relentlessly pursue the Islamic Republic and Syria
through all legal avenues in order to ensure that these judgements are
enforced and that the terror victims achieve a measure of justice.”

Tal PolonSource: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/223176 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Some thoughts at the end of the Obama presidency.

All these years later, it can be hard to remember quite what it was like. For the very youngest members of today's electorate, it's something that happened when they were just children. Even those of us who have been casting presidential ballots for decades may have trouble recollecting exactly how it felt. Because in the entire history of the Republic, there's never been anything quite like it.

Around a decade ago, during a brief visit to New York, I had dinner with an old friend of mine who is highly intelligent and supremely level-headed and certainly not the type to give in to sudden and rhapsodic enthusiasms. As it happened, she had come straight to the restaurant from what I assume must have been a fundraiser. At it, she'd heard a talk by a certain individual who at that point, I guess, was at the exploratory stage of a presidential candidacy. Her eyes were aglow. He was all she could talk about. She'd been floored by his eloquence, his charm, his palpable earnestness, his passionately articulated vision of a post-racial America. I had been aware of this fellow, but had not thought seriously about him as a candidate for the White House: all else aside, he was simply too inexperienced, with no national record to speak of. But my friend's excitement challenged my perceptions. If she, of all people, could get this worked up over Barack Obama, maybe I should pay him a bit more attention.

So I read his book, Dreams from My Father. It disturbed me. This was supposed to be the post-racial hero who'd finally heal America's most ancient wound? Take his family. The middle-class white grandparents who'd raised him had, apparently, been invariably loving – in his narrative, they came across as veritable saints – but he called them racists; by contrast, his accounts of his privileged, polygamous Kenyan father made it clear that the old man had been a world-class jerk and egomaniac, utterly indifferent to his wives and children, but in Obama's eyes every one of the man's failings was, somehow, the product of white racism.

As I wrote in December 2007: “Forget the content of our character; this is a work preoccupied with skin color.” It was, moreover, a book by a man more in love with Kenya and Indonesia than with America; a man who, at least in his boyhood, had had a close attachment to Islam, the religion of his father and stepfather; a man who'd enjoyed immense good fortune and experienced very little real hardship but who seemed to feel he'd had a rough ride and hadn't gotten his due.

Months later, when the news came out about Obama's virulently racist pastor and longtime mentor, Jeremiah Wright, it just confirmed – and then some – my worst suspicions about the junior senator from Illinois. “Millions have been drawn to Obama,” I blogged in March 2008, “because he has seemed to them to be something more than a politician. Alas, it seems increasingly clear that in fact he’s the best, the slickest, politician of them all.” Seeking to put the Wright debacle behind him, Obama delivered his now-famous speech on race. For me, it only underscored “the absurdity of the fact that a man capable of such an eloquent affirmation of America’s founding principles could have spent twenty years’ worth of Sunday mornings listening to the vile ravings of a boorish jackass.”

Yet for Obama's true believers, his sermon on race was only further proof that he was The One. Instead of holding him up to any standards, they felt it was their job – our job – to live up to him. “We have been asked to reflect in the most serious of ways about the role that race plays in the life of our country,” wrote the political scientist Alan Wolfe. “I cannot recall any leader or potential leader in the last two or three decades asking us to do that. I hope we are up to the challenge.” As I commented at the time: “This is not how America is supposed to work, people. We’re not here to prove anything to our leaders....But Obama has already got so many people thinking otherwise.”

Myself, I wanted Giuliani. As a native New Yorker, I'd seen him turn the city around in a way no mayor had ever done anywhere. And his response to 9/11 had been perfect. I'd applauded him when, on behalf of the city, he flatly turned down a $10 million donation from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. Meanwhile George W. Bush – who was so chummy with another Saudi Prince, Bandar bin Sultan, that he'd given him the nickname Bandar Bush – was busy hugging imams and calling Islam a religion of peace. Bottom line: Giuliani had Islam's number. Bush didn't – or, at least, thought it advisable to play dumb on the topic.

But Giuliani's candidacy went nowhere – and soon we were left with McCain, who also was demonstrably useless on Islam. So I voted for Obama, in the slim hope that, knowing Islam as intimately as he did, he understood the existential threat it represented to freedom and, once installed in the presidency, would rise above his boyhood attachment to it (and above the racism of Jeremiah Wright) and act responsibly on that understanding – and, perhaps, as a bonus, would use his gifts of persuasion to bring other Western leaders on board. Still, I knew I was betting on a long shot – a very long shot.

It was, of course, a bad bet – the worst. As soon as Obama won, he apparently thought his job was done. No presidential candidate had ever promised more than he had – he'd all but vowed to change heaven and earth – and surely no candidate had ever raised expectations as high. Not even Reagan – who, after all, had had a track record, complete with blemishes. Obama, in the eyes of his fervent admirers, was virtually unsullied – not a politician but a savior just waiting to be seated on his throne. Millions who had cast their votes for him felt they'd hitched their wagons to a shining star.

But Obama himself didn't seem to care. He didn't seem remotely interested in delivering. It was astonishing to realize that a man who had worked so hard to run for the presidency would put so little effort into the job itself once he was actually in office. The lack of effort was especially remarkable given that this was a healthy, energetic young man who, having come to the job with an extremely thin résumé, had a lot more to prove. You'd think, too, that as the first black president, he'd have wanted to do “his people” proud, to not let down the team, to be a magnificent role model for all those black kids he was always talking about. Imagine how impressed we all would have been – even those of us who can't stand him – if he'd foregone all vacations and golf games and concentrated full time on work. But he didn't. Nobody's expectations, either his worshipers' or his enemies', seemed to weigh on him in the slightest. The man who had presented himself as an exponent of high ideals and great ideas turned out to be the most cynical candidate ever.

To be sure, while Obama had little interest in hard work, and little skill at responsible governance, he was still eager to hear himself talk – and to use the bully pulpit to promote his ideological views. So one of his first major acts as president was to go to Cairo and give a “speech to the Muslim world” that, as I wrote in my book Surrender, was “a staggering pastiche of half-truths, exaggerations, and utter nonsense about Islamic history” and “an implicit announcement that his administration's policy toward the Muslim world would be one of shameless appeasement.” So much for any hope that Obama would stand up to the Islamization of the West.

And how fitting it was that, after having begun his presidency by brown-nosing Islam, he ended it by kicking Israel in the cojones. I need not go into detail about the massive mess he has made in these last eight years – the ways in which he's alienated America's allies while kowtowing to its enemies, stood up for criminals while rebuking cops, whitewashed Islam while ignoring its Jewish and Christian victims in the Middle East, defended illegal aliens while sneering at law-abiding, hard-working citizens, and lauded “community organizers” while demonizing entrepreneurs. The list goes on: the Obamacare fiasco, the climate-change fraud, and so on. Not least, there's his sowing of racial discord: how stunning that a man so capable of articulating a noble vision of a post-racial America could turn out to be so toxically obsessed with race, so thoroughly convinced that America is still steeped in racism, so gifted at creating and aggravating racial division while claiming that his goal is to heal.

But as bad a president as Obama has been, imagine how much more damage he could have done if not for his laziness. Fortunately for all of us, it turned out that his sloth exceeded his determination to transform America into Venezuela. If he's leaving office with a far higher level of popular support than he deserves, it's not because of anything he's accomplished but, in large part, because a lot of people who don't pay close attention to politics, and who haven't been personally damaged by his policies, retain an admiration for his style. He's smooth, he's suave, he's “cool.” That “cool” factor seduced a lot of voters in 2008. But over the years it has seemed increasingly clear that that “cool” factor was a function of his indifference. I was thinking about this the other day and it suddenly occurred to me whom he reminded me of : Dean Martin.

Yes, Dean Martin. Humor me here. Martin was cool, too. Audiences loved his laid-back style: he never seemed to be trying too hard. As Bob Greene wrote in 2012, “Frank Sinatra may have liked the image of being Chairman of the Board, but the core of Martin's enduring allure is that not only did he not want to be chairman, he didn't even want to serve on the board: It would mean that he would be cooped up in some boardroom for meetings when he'd rather be out playing golf.” Hey, whom does that remind you of? Writing about Martin this year, jazz critic Ted Gioia noted that “There’s a term in Italian for this kind of attitude: menefreghismo, a couldn’t-care-less manner that brings with it overtones of extreme macho coolness and total disregard for all consequences.” Ahem.

There you have it: in 2008, American voters were seduced by high-flown oratory and a promise of spectacular social and cultural transformation, only to discover that they'd been stuck with a master of menefreghismo, a slick character who was all talk (except when he decided to do something outright damaging and probably petty). Is it any surprise that in 2016 the electorate turned to a literal Chairman of the Board, a man of action, a man who had behind him a long, hands-on career of actually building things, a man who, eschewing lofty words, spoke in a blunt, honest, and no-nonsense way about the issues – even Islam! – and about the nuts-and-bolts business of fixing problems and getting things done?

Bruce Bawer is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center and the author of “While Europe Slept” and “Surrender.” His book "The Victims' Revolution: The Rise of Identity Studies and the Closing of the Liberal Mind" is just out from Broadside / Harper Collins.Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265402/18th-hole-bruce-bawer Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

“Two-state solution” is a misnomer and euphemism for creating a
Hamas-Iran-Fatah-Palestinian-Arab state on Jewish land that would
endanger Israel’s existence

Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) President Morton A. Klein released the following statement. ZOA very much appreciates and praises the U.S. Senate’s desire to
condemn the horrendous anti-Israel United Nations Security Council
Resolution 2334. Pending Senate Resolution 6
is well-meaning, and contains many praiseworthy provisions condemning
UNSC Resolution 2334 and potential additional anti-Israel actions in
Paris, at the UN and elsewhere. Unfortunately, however,
pending S. Res. 6 also contains offensive, gratuitous counterproductive
language promoting the dangerous so-called “two-state solution.” The
“two-state” language should be deleted prior to a vote.

“Two-state solution” is a misnomer and euphemism for creating a
Hamas-Iran-Fatah-Palestinian-Arab state on Jewish land that would
endanger Israel’s existence, by, among other things, subjecting all of
Israel, including its airport and major cities, to constant rocket
attack. A Palestinian-Arab state in Judea/Samaria would be another
Gaza-type terrorist enclave and missile-launching pad.

ZOA thus strongly urges the Senate to
revise S. Rep. 6 prior to a vote. The U.S. should not be in the business
of promoting such a “solution” on the sovereign state of Israel.

A Palestinian-Arab state is certain to be run by Hamas, Iran
and other terrorist groups. There is no prospect that a
Palestinian-Arab state would be demilitarized, democratic or peaceful in
the foreseeable future. Arab polls show that if an election were held
in the PA today, terrorist group Hamas would win. (“Poll: Hamas will win the Palestinian Elections,”
Israel Nat’l News, Aug. 28, 2016.) Hamas and other designated
foreign terrorist organizations, including the Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) are currently part of the Palestinian
Authority government. The PA pays terrorists to murder Jews, sentences
Arabs to death for selling land to Jews, and promotes terrorism against
Jews in schools, sports teams named after terrorists, and state-owned
media and mosque sermons encouraging knife and other attacks on innocent
Israeli civilians.

The “two-state” language in pending S. Rep. 6 contravenes the unanimously adopted pro-Israel 2016 Republican platform
– which elicited cheers from the entire room when it was passed, and
the beliefs of the American people who elected President-elect Trump and
the current Congress.

The 2016 Republican platform specifically eliminates any mention of a two-state solution, and instead declares: “We
recognize Jerusalem as the eternal and indivisible capital of the
Jewish state . . . We reject the false notion that Israel is an occupier
. . . We oppose any measures intended to impose an agreement or to
dictate borders or other terms.” In other words, the GOP platform opposes imposing the so-called “2-state solution.”

The American public understands and acknowledges that a
Palestinian-Arab state would support terrorism, would be hostile to
Israel, and would not be peaceful. A 2014 McLaughlin & Associates poll found that “by
a ratio of 3.5 to 1 (58% to 17%), Americans believe any future
Palestinian Arab state would be hostile to Israel and support terrorism.”

Moreover, the 1993 and 1994 Oslo accords (that the U.S. partially facilitated) did notcall for the establishment of a Palestinian-Arab state. The Israeli Prime Minister at the time, Yitzhak Rabin stated in his 1995 speech
to the Knesset regarding ratifying the Oslo accords that what was
contemplated was a Palestinian “entity which is less than a state.”

Res. 6 also mistakenly portrays facilitating the so-called
“two-state solution” is longstanding U.S. policy. In fact, a “two-state
solution” was only promoted by the U.S. for a short period of time –
approximately a dozen years, and is no longer the policy of the majority
party in Congress or the incoming administration. Only 3 Republican
platforms (2004, 2008 and 2012) supported a conditional
“vision” of a Palestinian-Arab state – under conditions that the
Palestinian Arabs have utterly failed to meet. The prior Republican
platforms (and current 2016 platform described above) adamantly refused
to impose any solution. For instance, the 2000 GOP platform stated: “We
will not impose our view or an artificial timetable.”

Similarly, Democratic platforms have only supported the concept of a
Palestinian-Arab state for a dozen years, since 2004 – and have also
contemplated conditions that the Palestinian Arabs have never met.
Prior Democratic platforms insisted on “no imposed solutions.”

Promoting a Palestinian-Arab state as U.S. policy also creates a rift
between the U.S. and Israel. The overwhelming majority of Israeli
cabinet members and the Israeli public oppose a Palestinian-Arab state.
Israel’s ruling party, Likud, states that “any evacuated territory would fall into the hands of Islamic extremist and terror organisations supported by Iran.” (See “The Two-State Solution is Dead; Just Ask Israel’s Own Ministers,” Al Jazeera, May 27, 2015; also see statements of Israeli officials “In Their Own Words.”) The respected Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
poll (Oct. 2014) found that 75% of Israeli Jews oppose the creation of a
Palestinian state (versus only 18% in favor; thus, more than 4 to 1
oppose a Palestinian state). Israeli opposition to a Palestinian-Arab
terrorist state is likely even stronger today, in light of the recent wave of terror
in which Palestinian-Arab terrorists incited (and paid) by the PA/PLO
leadership murdered 42 innocent Israelis (including American-Israelis)
and wounded over 500 innocent Israelis.

An alternative pending Senate Resolution 5, entitled “A Resolution Expressing the Sense of the Senate in Support of Israel,”
introduced by Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) rejects UNSC Resolution
2334 and other efforts to delegitimize Israel – without mentioning or
seeking to impose a “two-state solution.” Pending S. Res. 5
demonstrates that the dangerous, counterproductive “two-state solution”
language in Rep. 6 is totally unnecessary.

ZOA thus strongly urges the Senate to revise S. Rep. 6 prior to a
vote. The U.S. should not be in the business of promoting such a
“solution” on the sovereign state of Israel.

Objectionable Provisions in S. Res. 6:

Objectionable “whereas” clauses in pending S. Res. 6:

“Whereas it is long-standing policy of the United States
Government that a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict must come through direct, bilateral negotiations without
preconditions for a sustainable two-state solution;” and

“Whereas several United States administrations have articulated
principles as a vision for achieving a two-state solution, including
addressing borders, mutual recognition, refugees, Jerusalem, and ending
all outstanding claims;”

Objectionable “resolved” clauses in pending S. Res. 6:

“Resolved, That the Senate—. . . (2) calls for United Nations
Security Council Resolution 2334 to be repealed or fundamentally altered
so that it is no longer one-sided and allows all final status issues toward a two-state solution
to be resolved through direct bilateral negotiations between the
parties; . . . (8) reaffirms that it is the policy of the United States
to continue to seek a sustainable, just, and secure two-state solution to resolve the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.”

ZOASource: http://zoa.org/2017/01/10348742-zoa-pending-senate-res-s-res-6-condemning-un-security-council-resolution-2334-must-eliminate-promoting-a-palestinianhamas-state/ Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Information is slowly trickling out that links the Ft. Lauderdale
Airport shooter to radical Islam while the official story from
authorities is that the gunman is a mentally ill, Hispanic Army veteran
named Esteban Santiago that became unhinged after a tour in Iraq.

The Ft. Lauderdale Airport shooter is a Muslim convert who years
before joining the U.S. Army took on an Islamic name (Aashiq Hammad),
downloaded terrorist propaganda and recorded Islamic religious music
online, according to public records
dug up by the investigative news site of an award-winning, California
journalist. This is pertinent information that the Obama administration
apparently wants to keep quiet, bringing up memories of the Benghazi
cover up, in which the president and his cohorts knowingly lied to
conceal that Islamic terrorists attacked the U.S. Special Mission in
Libya.

Information is slowly trickling out that links the Ft. Lauderdale
Airport shooter to radical Islam while the official story from
authorities is that the gunman is a mentally ill, Hispanic Army veteran
named Esteban Santiago that became unhinged after a tour in Iraq. Only
one mainstream media outlet mentions the possibility of Santiago’s “jihadist identity,”
burying it in a piece about New York possibly being his initial target.
A paragraph deep in the story mentions that investigators recovered
Santiago’s computer from a pawn shop and the FBI is examining it to
determine whether he created a “jihadist identity for himself using the
name Aashiq Hammad…” The rest of the traditional mainstream media
coverage promotes the government rhetoric that omits any ties to
terrorism even though early on a photo surfaced of Santiago making an
ISIS salute while wearing a keffiyeh, a Palestinian Arab scarf.

The public records uncovered in the days after the massacre suggest
Santiago (Hammad) is a radical Islamic terrorist that’s seriously
committed to Islam. Besides taking on a Muslim name, he recorded three
Islamic religious songs, including the Muslim declaration faith (“there
is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger”) known as the
Shahada. He also posted a thread about downloading propaganda videos
from Islamic terrorists on a weapons and explosives forum. The
investigative news site that unearthed this disturbing information
connected the dots between Santiago, who is of Puerto Rican descent, and
Hammad, an identity he created in 2007.

This week a prominent Ft. Lauderdale businessman and longtime
resident addressed a letter to the city’s mayor and commissioners
blasting county and federal officials for covering up that “Aashiq
Hammad, not Esteban Santiago, attacked our city and county.” The
businessman, respected Ft. Lauderdale real estate entrepreneur Jim
Morlock, specifically names Broward County’s elected sheriff Scott
Israel, Florida senator Bill Nelson, the first to identify Santiago as
the shooter on national television, and congresswoman Debbie Wasserman
Schultz, ousted last summer as Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair
over a scandalous plot to damage Bernie Sanders during the primary.

“Since when does a US Senator (Bill Nelson), not law enforcement, be
the one to so quickly release this terrorist’s Hispanic name but nothing
about his more relevant Islamic background?” the letter asks. Obama
must have told Sen. Nelson to keep this from looking like a Muslim
Terrorist attack during the last 12 days of his watch. Bad for his
legacy.” Morlock goes on to state that it’s “better to portray this
atrocity as white Hispanic Alaskan mental Iraq war vet gun violence.”
The real estate entrepreneur proceeds to reveal that Santiago lives in
walking distance to the only mosque in Alaska, was radicalized before he
entered the military and was knowingly allowed to serve despite his
Islamic sympathies thanks to “Obama’s PC military.”

The letter poses interesting questions, including why this Muslim
terrorist chose Ft. Lauderdale out of all the nation’s airports and who
Santiago knows in Broward county, which has a large and growing Islamic
community. In 2015 Judicial Watch obtained records
from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) that show an Al
Qaeda terrorist who helped plan several U.S. attacks lived in Broward
County and graduated from the local community college with a degree in
computer engineering. His name is Adnan G. El Shukrijumah, but he also
has a Hispanic identity, Javier Robles, and for years he appeared on the
FBI’s most wanted list. Back in 2012 Judicial Watch reported
on a terrorist front group’s demands that Broward County public schools
close twice a year to celebrate Islamic holy days, illustrating the
influence that Muslims have in the region.

Judicial WatchSource: http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2017/01/airport-shooter-converted-islam-identified-aashiq-hammad-years-joining-army/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Tipsheet%201-11-17%20(1)&utm_content= Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

OUSU stands up for Jewish students, calls on national student leader to apologize or resign for past anti-Semitic statements.

Oxford University (file)

iStock

In a show of solidarity with Jewish students, the Oxford
University Student Union (OUSU) published this week an announcement
acknowledging the problem of anti-Semitism at the University, and
challenging national student leader Malia Bouattia to resign if she
won’t apologize to Jewish students for past anti-Semitic statements.

“We would particularly like to acknowledge concerns raised
specifically over the National Union of Students [NUS] and the Oxford
University Labour Club [OULC],” the OUSU posted on its website.

NUS President Malia Bouattia has, in the past, expressed
support for terror, calling Palestinian terrorism against Israelis
“Palestinian resistance,” and blaming “mainstream Zionist-led media
outlets” for painting the “resistance” as terrorism.

She also had claimed that the BDS movement doesn’t go far enough in its war against Israel.

“To consider that Palestine will be free only by means of
fundraising, non-violent protest, and the Boycott, Divestment, and
Sanctions movement is problematic," she said.

In light of her previous statements, the OUSU called on Bouattia to apologize to Jewish students - or resign.

“While there is a variety of opinion amongst Jewish students
regarding the NUS and its leadership, we cannot ignore or dismiss the
hurt and anger caused by statements made by Malia Bouattia. We echo
calls from Jewish students for a full and formal apology for her
language and comments, condemn the lack of apology thus far, and agree
that if no apology is made, the appropriate course of action would be
resignation.”

Similarly, the OUSU noted the “disappointment felt over the
inadequate response from the University” with respect to complaints of
anti-Semitism within the Oxford University Labor Club.

“[We hope that] that OULC can once again become a place where Jewish students feel welcome,” the OUSU wrote.

Previously, a co-Chair of the OULC had resigned
over the group’s support for Israel Apartheid Week, and anti-Semitism
among the extreme-left of the student body in general; since then,
numerous other students have come forward with testimony describing
anti-Semitic incidents from within the group.

Tal PolonSource: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/223178 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

TDS is a disease caused in part by the left's deconstruction of America, a process that has been a long time in the making.

Though it is not to be found [in] the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the debilitating condition of "Trump Derangement Syndrome" (TDS) has gripped countless Hillary voters, particularly among the celebrity class, intelligentsia, and bourgeois left, causing them to experience psychological terror, panic, and grief in the wake of the election. The symptoms of TDS have manifested themselves across the continent in riots, marches, hysterical tweets, internet rants, Hollywood celebrity grandstanding, physical attacks on Trump supporters, direct confrontation of Trump family members, and what the honorary Women's Studies Ph.D.s on The View have called "electile dysfunction."

One would have hoped that sufferers of TDS would not allow their disorder to spill over onto innocent children, but as I discovered in a letter from the chief executive of my daughter's school board, TDS has come to a school near you.

A politely worded correspondence arrived at my home during the school holiday break, in which one of my local education officials wanted to ensure me that I as a parent can be confident that my child's school will be on the cutting edge of the immigration debate, which was a hot topic during the 2016 presidential race. In the event that I might be a monolingual hispanohablante, this one-page treatise was provided in English and en español, thus the symptoms of TDS graced mi casa in two languages. After wishing me a "joyous winter holiday" – thereby checking off the multiculturally appropriate greeting box on the politically correct Newspeak checklist – the gentleman writing to me proffered the following diversity committee-approved assurance:

I know that for many of you the coming year is causing fear and uncertainty due to the recent presidential election. Many of you have asked what [our schools] will do to support our students and families in the face of this new reality. In this regard, I want to reiterate [our schools'] historic commitment to providing a high-quality education to every student who walks into our schools, regardless of immigration status. We pride ourselves on operating schools that offer safe learning environments where every student and family is welcome and respected.We have not and will not ask for your family's immigration status, nor will we share your personal information with others. If you are asked to share your personal information or sign any petitions, please use caution and be sure you know to whom you are speaking and for what purposes your personal information will be used.In the months ahead, we will provide all our students, families and staff with access to information, resources and support services related to immigration and Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals (DACA). If you have suggestions or have resources to share with others, please talk to your principal or parent engagement specialist.

How exciting it was for me to be made aware that the public school bureaucracy was hard at work – not at devising better education for my offspring, mind you, but in keeping vigilant that my fellow taxpayers and I would continue to have our confiscated resources spent to ensure that our school system is a safe haven for illegal immigrants!

Mr. Administrator could have taken this opportunity to celebrate that the United States continued its tradition of free elections. He could have mentioned that in spite of the unrest across the country, the Electoral College completed its constitutional assignment of electing Donald Trump as the 45th president without incident. He could have noted that, while President Obama and his team are conducting themselves petulantly and disruptively during the interregnum period, America is enjoying a relatively quiet process leading toward the peaceful transfer of power from one presiding officer to another. Unfortunately, the writer chose to expose me and the other parents in my cohort to his TDS, manifested in his demagoguery regarding the immigration issue as he played up the alleged "fear" caused by The Donald.

In addition to confirming the existence of TDS as a genuine mental health concern, this letter is prima facie evidence of the depth of corruption, lawlessness, and anti-Americanism in our nation's public sector. From the local to state to federal levels, we can count on armies of bureaucrats fighting a battle against the very people they are paid to serve – that is, the tax-paying citizens.

TDS is a disease caused in part by the left's deconstruction of America, a process that has been a long time in the making. The ideas in the letter from which I quoted above have roots far deeper than in the open-borders culture of the Obama administration.

To arrive at the point when a school administrator, triggered by TDS, feels compelled to alert the parents in his jurisdiction that he will not participate in efforts suggested by the incoming president to actually follow immigration law, we need to go back at least to 1982, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Plyler v. Doe case, which can be summarized as mandating that:

... undocumented children and young adults have the same right to attend public primary and secondary schools as do U.S. citizens and permanent residents. Like other children, undocumented students are obliged under state law to attend school until they reach a mandated age.

Over thirty years of public policy supporting the use of taxpayer-funded education for illegal aliens hastened the onset of the letter-writer's TDS. He indicted himself as not caring about federal immigration law, while at the same time he adopted an affinity for the constitutionally questionable DACA program, which President Obama implemented by fiat and which was put on hold by a federal court in 2015. This public official, paid by citizens the fruit of whose labor is legally stolen by city, county, state, and federal taxing authorities, goes on record as a willing proponent of a policy under legal scrutiny by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. He is in favor of continued public spending on services to people who broke immigration law. By offering this information in Spanish, he made it all the easier for these same individuals to be armed with information that will keep them out of the way of accountability to law enforcement. Essentially, my child's school is a sanctuary campus.

Q: Under what sane system of governance does a local public service department follow a policy to provide supports at taxpayer expense to people not legally entitled to be in the country in the first place?

A: Only under one afflicted with a mental health condition associated with liberal progressivism.

This case demonstrates that the plague of TDS has infected the public school system and has scuttled the idea that one can send his children to public school for educational purposes.

John Steinreich has an M.A. in Church History from Colorado Theological Seminary and is the author of two Christian-themed nonfiction books, The Words of God?and A Great Cloud of Witnesses. His works are available onLulu Pressand onKindle.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/01/trump_derangement_syndrome_comes_to_a_school_near_you.html Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

"We have stated in no uncertain terms that if this bill doesn't pass, no other bill will pass," MK Bezalel Smotrich warns • Deputy Defense Minister Eli Ben-Dahan says work on bill will progress as usual • Defense minister: We have to act responsibly.

Habayit Hayehudi MK Bezalel Smotrich

|

Photo credit: Oren Ben Hakoon

Habayit Hayehudi on Wednesday threatened a coalition crisis unless the outpost regulation bill which would allow the government to retroactively legalize contested outposts in Judea and Samaria, moves ahead.

The controversial legislation passed its
preliminary reading in November, but coalition faction heads then agreed
not to advance the bill further. However, Habayit Hayehudi MKs are
demanding that the bill be prepared for further readings in the Knesset.

Deputy Defense Minister Eli Ben-Dahan insisted
that work on the bill will progress as usual, while MK Bezalel Smotrich
warned of a political crisis.

"We have stated in no uncertain terms that if
this bill doesn't pass, no other bill will pass," Smotrich said. "The
entire coalition is responsible for this bill; I can't believe the
coalition would renege on it. I was forced to align myself on laws many
times, even if I disagreed with them. If everyone votes for whatever
they wants, the coalition would be unable to function. This is a sure
recipe for the collapse of the coalition and election proceedings."

The commotion over the bill was sparked
earlier this week when Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, speaking at
an Yisrael Beytenu meeting, said the bill had essentially been shelved.

"I can only speak for myself, [but] this bill
is not right," he said. "As you know, the bill has yet to pass and it
will never pass. This was apparently the straw that broke the camel's
back for [U.S.] President [Barack] Obama, and we took a hit in the
Security Council, so we must be serious and responsible."

Mati Tuchfeld and Efrat ForsherSource: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=39519 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.